ANAND KUMAR Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Madhu Tandon, for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3.1.1995, dismissing the revision in default and 16.3.2011, dismissing the restoration application of the petitioner, in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The dispute between the parties is in respect of the land of basic consolidation year khata Nos. 54-Aa and 54-Ba, which were recorded in the name of Bhoop Narain (now represented by the contesting respondents). Udai Narain (now represented by the petitioner) filed an objection under section 9 of the Act, claiming co-tenancy in the land in dispute, on the ground that the land in dispute was ancestral property and were jointly inherited by Bhoop Narain and Udai Narain, who were real brothers. The name of Bhoop Narain was recorded in representative capacity. Bhoop Narain contested the case on the ground that ancestral properties had already been partitioned, before date of vesting. Land in dispute was given in the share of Bhoop Narain, while Udai Narain had already sold his properties, after partition.

(3.) Consolidation Officer, by order dated 25.4.1988, allowed the objection of Udai Narain. Bhoop Narain filed an appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer, which was allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 28.4.1993. Udai Narain filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 98) against the aforesaid order. The revision was dismissed in default by order dated 3.1.1995.